crofty can you please break this article and main points down for the average individuals to understand, i found this article and thought of you, thought you might be interested in this topic too.
i don't fully understand it, can you please help us, you are our "resident expert" on this topic!
will you please break it down for us as to what it means and how it affects us brains?
From what I understand, the findings had not been confirmed when the announcement was made and the scientists working on it were transparent about it. Upon further scrutiny, the waves were actually dust. Thankfully, the "retraction" barely registered in the media.
So... science worked exactly as expected.
during the many years of being a jw, i could never really bring myself to be exited about the co's visit.
this has been an issue that always kept me wondering back to religions.
why could not feel the same happiness that made everyone around me cry during the sunday service?
first law of thermodynamics, that energy cannot be created or destroyed but changed from one form to another.
how does that fit in with god and the big bang to you?
does it make one make more sense then the other to you?
In court, an attorney can use any statement or written information and use it to show what he represents it to mean or what he concludes it means as it favors his theory but an analytical reader is impartial and his objective is to understand the author.
Yes. All evidence points to the Bible not being science book or sciency or reconciling with science in any meaningful way.
Regarding YOUR conclusion that the Bible and Science do not reconcile is a very B ROAD statement. It is quite a burden to prove what you have stated.
That's no more my conclusion that the fact that it's Monday in NYC as I write this. It's simply the observable facts.
But my post is not about that nor is any desire that I have shown to learn more about theories or to examine scientific evidence relating to HOW (to quote the PHD) the universe was formed, a concession that God does not exist.
Yeah, that's I said. You're arguing but agreeing with me. Weird.
I refer you to re-read the theme of this thread as it relates to my post. Also, I am only expressing how I think. I am not trying to persuade you to see things my way.
No thanks, I've already read your comments.
(before you read i hope no one gets offended by the word retarted...that s how i thought when i was 13)my mom and dad are divorced and my father never helped my mother on raising us, so basically she was a single-mother.
he just abandoned my three brothers and me and my mother had to work two jobs all of the time so we never got to see her.
when we did see her it was after school, but all she did was yell at us, make food, and leave to her next job.
He's written a book called "The Spirit Molecule", and a documentary film of the same name has been made. This is all peer reviewed science.... no new age mumbo jumbo
Books and documentaries aren't peer reviewed science.
I will say that it seems that god's natural language is silence and everything else has been a bad translation.
I am absolutely stealing that line.
red cross had a blood drive near me, i decided to go give blood.
i hydrated well, ate some red meat for the iron last night and at lunch, we and gave a pint of blood.
i felt mildly embarrassed, i had no idea what my blood type was.
for those of you familiar with ayn rand and her ideas on morality, rationality and reason, what is your opinion of those ideas?.
i'm talking about her actual ideas, not the ideals that libertarianism has adopted and, in some cases, perverted.
do you think she's a charlatan?
Cappytan has created a fine opportunity for discussion about Ayn Rand in this thread, and I'd hate to hijack it with personality colorations from respondents.
Then ... don't hijack it?
We've been discussing Ayn Rand and philosophy. You seem to think something else is going on. What that is, I've no idea.
first law of thermodynamics, that energy cannot be created or destroyed but changed from one form to another.
how does that fit in with god and the big bang to you?
does it make one make more sense then the other to you?
Without considering the dynamics of the formation of the universe, the Bible makes the remark "inexcusable" (vs plausible), referring to God's "invisible qualities" . In other words the Bible declares that it is not plausible, the ONLY conclusion is creation; The other argument is the house analogy(design).
I admit that I know that God is a reality. I do not conclude that from faith or from the Bible, or from deductive or inductive reasoning or from any logic or feelings or experiences or because of something that I read, because in those things there is the possibility of being mistaken.
In my thinking now, the knowledge of God trumps.
Any pretense you initially made about wanting to know more was swiftly proven false. You're just preaching and trying to somehow show the Bible and science reconcile.
They do not.
for those of you familiar with ayn rand and her ideas on morality, rationality and reason, what is your opinion of those ideas?.
i'm talking about her actual ideas, not the ideals that libertarianism has adopted and, in some cases, perverted.
do you think she's a charlatan?
It is simply an observation on the pot calling the kettle 'black.'
In what way? The topic requested opinions on Ayn Rand. That was what I offered. It didn't ask for opinions about another guy.
But, snipes and catcalls from the bleachers are merely interruptions and often lead to bad manners.
Which is exactly why I asked about you sniping at someone else who offered his opinion on Ayn Rand, which is the topic.
Now, in response what do we see? Is there discussion? Or, is there peremptory dismissal?
You got a specific reason why I found Adler to be lacking. What were you expecting?
You see, I think it is good to express yourself with alternatives and suggested options for others to consider. If you consider path A to be worthless, then suggested path B and tell why it is better.
You got that. What were you expecting?
for those of you familiar with ayn rand and her ideas on morality, rationality and reason, what is your opinion of those ideas?.
i'm talking about her actual ideas, not the ideals that libertarianism has adopted and, in some cases, perverted.
do you think she's a charlatan?
Of course a group need not be religious to be a cult.
Agreed.
But I was thinking how ironic it is in this case. The very idea of there being a leader with followers is antithetical to Rand's philosophy of individualism.
It absolutely drops with irony.
I guess it just proves that some people can't help their narcissistic bent and others can't help but adore them.
Interestingly, Ayn Rand became that which she preached against, much like in Animal Farm :)
for those of you familiar with ayn rand and her ideas on morality, rationality and reason, what is your opinion of those ideas?.
i'm talking about her actual ideas, not the ideals that libertarianism has adopted and, in some cases, perverted.
do you think she's a charlatan?
That quotation is by a fellow named John Rogers. One of his claims to fame involved writing the script to the movie CATWOMAN. He's obviously marvellously well-qualified to criticize :)
Surely, Terry, you aren't going down the road of criticizing who said it rather than the substance of the argument itself, are you?
